Bodmin Assizes Cornwallbefore Mr Justice Williams
For Robbing The Dead of the Barque John

PLYMOUTH AND STONEHOUSE JOURNALThursday August 2nd,1855

Matilda Gay , 35, and Constantine
Tripconey, 62, a shoemaker, were charged with
stealing on the 31st May, last, about ten sovereigns
from a dead body at St.Keverne. Mr.Cole and Mr.Kingdon
were counsel for the prosecution; Mr.Coleridge defended
Tripconey, and Mr.Stork for the female prisoner. The
circumstance of this case were of a very painful
nature, and arose out of the loss of the John,
emigrant-ship, which left Plymouth on the afternoon of
the 3rd of May last. A few hours after her departure
she was wrecked on the Manacles Rocks, situated on the
Southern Coast of Cornwall, with the loss of more than
two-thirds of her passengers. After the wreck, dredging
machines were employed to take up the dead bodies by
the Coast-guard men of the neighbourhood.

On the 31st May, three men named John Penticost,
James Richards, and Thomas Kingdon, proceeded to
St.Keverne, the scene of the wreck, and found
floating near the beach the dead body of a female,
unknown. They carried the body a short distance from
the sea, when one of the men thought he saw the body of
another unfortunate passenger floating in the water.
They then left the body in question, but previous to
doing so, they observed that attached to the stays was
a pocket so sewn that it's contents could not be
abstracted without it's being cut open. One of the
witnesses felt the pocket and it was his opinion that
it contained a considerable sum of money. The men left
the body and proceeded again to the water's edge
for the purpose of looking for the second body, but
when they came down they found that they had been
mistaken. Whilst absent the two prisoners and another
woman were seen near the body, the female prisoner
being observed to look over the clothes. The men,
apprehending that the prisoners were searching the
body, returned to the spot where they had deposited it,
and they discovered that the stays had been cut open.
The pocket was also cut, inside of which was some
paper, which had evidently contained money. The men saw
the prisoners go into a meadow and they proceeded after
them. One of the witnesses asked the female prisoner
what was the matter with her, as she appeared to be
hurried, and her reply was that the state of the woman
had frightened her. The witness told her that she had
no business to go near the body, much less to touch it,
and they subsequently accused both the prisoners with
the robbery. The matter having come to the knowledge of
the Rev. Mr.Griffiths, vicar at St.Keverne, a warrant
was issued for their apprehension, but before it was
put into execution, the male prisoner came to the rev.
gentleman and handed him over five sovereigns, at the
same stating that that was all the money he and the
other prisoner had found on the body. A woman named
Philippa Martin, stated in her evidence that she
accompanied the prisoners on the morning in question to
St.Keverne. the female prisoner went over to the body,
and after remaining there a short time Tripconey said
"they are coming" (meaning the men) and Gay
then seemed to be very much hurried. Tripconey then
said, "put the money in my hand" and witness
saw upwards of £10 in gold transferred to him.
Afterwards he remarked that he had had a good day's
work, and he offered the witness a part of the money
which she refused. When the prisoners were committed,
the female observed that she should not have gone near
the body had not Tripconey pointed it out to her, and
the latter replied, "for God's sake don't
make a bad matter worse."

Mr. STORK, for the female prisoner, did not deny that
she had robbed the body, but submitted there was no
felonious intent. He put it to the Jury, whether,
supposing she had thought she was doing wrong, she
would have robbed the unfortunate passenger in the
presence of anyone; but when she heard that robbing a
body constituted a felony, she directed Tripconey to
take the money to the vicar, and for aught the jury
knew, the £5 handed over to that gentleman by the
male prisoner was all the money found on the body. His
client evidently thought that she had a much right to
the money as any other person; and her conduct
subsequent to the occurrence he confidently submitted
was a clear proof that there was no felonious intent;
and therefore she was entitled to an acquittal.

Mr.COLERIDGE, on behalf of Tripconey, rested his
defence on similar grounds to Mr.Stork, but endeavoured
to cast the onus of the robbery on the prisoner Gay.

His lordship observed that the two prisoners were
charged with stealing ten sovereigns, the property of
the Bishop of Exeter, the indictment being so laid,
owing to the ancient right which he had to take
possession of any property found on the body of a
person unknown until administration was taken out, and
the only question for the jury to consider was whether
it appeared to them that the prisoners at the bar took
the money with the intention of appropriating it to
themselves. If they thought it was so taken, it was
nothing less than a felony; but if, on the other hand,
they were satisfied that there was no such intent, they
were bound to acquit them. The prisoner Tripconey was
committed on two counts - the first with having
participated in the actual stealing of the property,
and the second with having received the money knowing
it to be stolen. If the jury thought that they had a
common design in stealing the money, and that the male
prisoner was present with the common purpose of aiding
her, he was as guilty as she was, although he might not
be the actual person who took it, or might not have
been within twenty yards of the spot; but if there was
reasonable doubt in the matter they were bound to
acquit them both.

The jury then retired, and after a few minutes
deliberation, they found both the prisoners guilty, but
at the same time, they thought they had not taken the
money with the intention of committing a felony.

The JUDGE, with evident astonishment, said the question
was whether they took the money with a felonious
intent; if they did not think so they were bound to
acquit them.

A Juryman: We do not think they had a dishonest
intention.

The JUDGE; You must find them guilty or not guilty. If
you think they did not take the money with the
intention of depriving the true owner, you are bound to
acquit them.

The jurymen were as stupid a body of men as could well
be got together, and it was some time before they could
understand the judge. They ultimately retired to
another room, and after an absence of about half an
hour, they found both the prisoners guilty.

The prisoners were sentenced on the following morning
to three months' imprisonment, the female prisoner
to hard labour.